Is 4k worth it. The difference is about $200
- Thread starter robertjp
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 185
- Views 16K
That would be the rest of my post to clarify that it is not always the case, as was with the 3D. The providers pushing, plus streaming services like Netflix and HuLu offering 4K, very well push for the investments, slowly but surely. This will be up to the tv manufacturers to have affordable sets that produce quality pictures, which in turn will drive demand. The company and channels that can supply that demand will be the ones with the higher per subscriber fee warranted, and we will see the transition. If sets of quality do not come down in price permanently and not just for sales, then I believe you to be correct that we may see no change. 3Ds biggest fault was that the companies that made good sets also had ridiculous prices, thus not really having a demand. It's a domino effect, and the tv ecosystem.
How much bandwidth does it take to stream it though? It's not the finished product, it's the transmission of it. How good does that 1080p signal look on a 3Mb DSL line? I'm guessing you have a 10-20Mb internet service at minimum.
OTA is limited to 19.4Mb for each channel. Divide that into (at minimum) one HD and one SD, plus some overhead (PSIP and other tables), and you're looking at ~11-12M for the HD and 5-6 for the SD. Some channels are now putting two HD's in that same 19.4. How much bandwidth do you think each channel is getting? It's even possible to put three HDs in that space. And this is only for OTA. MVPDs put even more channels into each slot. And now you want to multiply the data needed by four? Compression will get there, but it's not ready yet.
3D was a gimmick, as always was. 4K is real, young, but real.
As the JS7000 SUHD does have HDCP 2.2 and Samsung's nano-crystals 'SUHD' (it can do HDR) the extra $200 is definitely worth it. As this is a modern 2015 set, the image processor should handle the 60Hz panel just fine.
Just make sure you can view 4k at the proper distance to be worth it.
For me it involves having the couch at the proper 1080 viewing distance and sliding it forward when 4k is watched (which is infrequent at this point in time, since I mostly watch live TV.)
Demand for UHD TVs or UHD content???
The TVs are here to stay as the manufacturers have committed. The UHD content imperative does not follow just as the 1080p or 3D imperative didn't arise from those technologies.
How is UHD not as much of a gimmick as 3D?
The glasses comeback is not a valid answer as it could be eliminated if there were enough interest and for as many people who can't see 3D or are nauseated by it, there are just as many that can't physically discern the resolution and/or brightness or color advantages.
Which do you think ultimately adds the most to the picture: a third dimension or a little better gamut and a little better dynamic range?
Let's not forget that for real-life scenes, HDR must be shot with special cameras as digital imaging sensors typically don't have sufficient dynamic range.
I submit that 3D provided something useful if used correctly but UHD is mostly academic; especially if the content remains hard to come by because Blu-ray HD is good enough.
HD Blu Ray is more then Good enough.
You have an extremely good picture.
It doesn't need to be better.
4K is just another technology that good for making people spend more money.
Nothing more.
HD was a break through.
4K and 8K is not.
A person only has so much Eye sight.
You have an extremely good picture.
It doesn't need to be better.
4K is just another technology that good for making people spend more money.
Nothing more.
HD was a break through.
4K and 8K is not.
A person only has so much Eye sight.
My answer about 3D is your answer! If there was enough of an interest glasses would have been eliminated. 3D sets never flew off the shelves by most estimates the biggest majority of people who bought a 3D set did so only because it has other features only available if they did so, and at some point the price point was about the same as no 3D. In addition, the third dimension added little for me since with very minor exception no broadcast programming was ever developed or was even in the mix to be.. If the discussion is 3D is relevant for movies, for some movies yes.
From reading around I still do see experiments with 3D with no glasses, but watching most any broadcast TV other than movies to me 3D adds nothing and may be more of a distraction. I don't know that I would get any enhancement in Modern Family or Last Man Standing in 3D, and maybe a scene or two in NCIS. But a richer more detailed picture just as HD is over SD would be. Perhaps with further 3D development I would "see" it differently.
If a case was to be made that 4K is a "gimmick", it would be how close you must sit to see the difference. There are plenty of people not getting the full benefits of 1080 as it is from sitting too far away. 4K was originally developed for the extreme large outdoor screens but marketing people realized we would probably buy into it, I can agree with that. There is nothing you need to do to see the 4K difference however except sit close enough, it does provide a better picture in everything that is in 4K and perhaps in some cases to 1080 material but I'm not making that case. So like HD when it started as long as material is eventually broadcast in 4K I see it as a benefit I would want, but only if you sit close enough. I bet the majority of people with HD who are actually seeing HD are seeing 720 not 1080. People with smaller bedroom TV's in many cases I bet are seeing 480. From that standpoint if you say 4K is a gimmick I don't totally disagree but I do think it could be universally better something I don't feel about 3D.
This CNET article makes some excellent points about 4K not being worth it yet, not that it is a gimmick but that there are too many standards not being employed yet will be in the near future that will greatly enhance the picture, beyond pixels.
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jpg
Last edited:
I tend to agree, but we should give UHD it's due. It will have a greater range between the darkest and lightest, allowing us to see details in shadows that we can't today. And the range of colors will be noticeably better, from about 35% of human color perception to about 75%. Granted, some lower cost ones won't do that today, and perhaps that will persist.
Another thing it allows, and has been demoed, is the ability to show two completely different programs on the screen at the same time. Granted, you both have to be wearing glasses and headphones, but you and your spouse can watch two different shows on the same TV at the same time. I don't know of anyone actually selling a TV with that capability.
And, in theory, they can develop it to make much better 3D, possibly glasses free. This would be related to the previous paragraph.
Greater resolution? Except as how it allows some of the above, MEH!
Yet your answer doesn't illustrate how UHD isn't isn't also a gimmick that demands that you sit no further than a few feet (perhaps 1.5 times the diagonal measure?) to have any hope of seeing the greater resolution.
Being able to reproduce sounds well above the range of human hearing is a gimmick. Being able to produce more shades or higher resolution than the human eye can discern is a numbers game and hence, a gimmick.
The big win with these sets is going to come from FALD and maybe WCG and because nobody builds HD consumer panels anymore, that's only going to come with UHD TVs.
My whole second paragraph? My answer boils down to it not being a gimmick as much as is it worth it. The technology is better, period. When there is 4K broadcast i would not hesitate to buy a 4K tv. Will people sit close enough is a valid question, but no more than getting a dolby digital tuner and the user only using two cheap speakers.
To sum it up, in the overall outcome, for all people here, can you see an actual difference in the picture. I say yes, there is a very discernible difference, but not enough to make me want to drop what I have and buy a 4K. Anyone can throw out that we cannot see the difference except for certain sizes at certain distances, but that has been refuted by each person I have seen on here that has a 4K tv. Whether it is the resolution, color, contrast, etc... The fact of the matter is a 4K tv, and 4K content will give you a discernible difference.
Your second paragraph, as I read it, speaks to the idea that 4K wasn't really intended for home use and that even if deployed in the home, it won't be much more than a numbers game.
What it comes down to is whether or not you can discern the "improvement". If you cannot, don't expect that a tsunami of UHD content is going to justify paying hundreds more for a comparable UHD unit.
I think that's key. If you are buying a TV for a reason other than needing the "latest, greatest", it does make sense to me to at least look at 4K. Using numbers a PP said, if a 4K set is only $200 more than a 1080p one, I can see putting that money up. However, if the 1080p is a name brand, gets good reviews, etc, and the 4K is some "no name", I don't think it's worth it.
My friend who is testing it says it is working very well and it looks like it will start rolling out on January 15th.
I was reading about whether 4K is really worth getting. With what size tv is it worth buying if you stay 5-15 feet away from the television? I am trying to decide on whether to get a 65-70" 1080p Black Friday deal or a 60-65" UHD television. I know that the smaller televisions may not make as big of a difference as the larger televisions.
Was also wondering how much the projectors have advanced and if they still require bulb replacement every 3000 hours. This is why I did not buy a projector last time and also due to the dark environment that you had to be in to view them.
Was also wondering how much the projectors have advanced and if they still require bulb replacement every 3000 hours. This is why I did not buy a projector last time and also due to the dark environment that you had to be in to view them.
Where I live,the IP's(WOW,AT&T DSL) don't have the bandwidth available(WOW has 12GB speed & AT&T DSL has 6GB speed) to justify getting a 4K TV yet. Of course,i can't tell you how long HD was out before my then cable company started providing it. I might as well live in Elbonia.
